Commercial Space Supporters Respond

What makes anyone think Congress will "fully fund" anything for NASA?

The letter is conspicuously worded to not endorse the entire FY2011 budget.

You could imagine an interpretation of this where the reader sees something the authors may not have intended. To some people, (2) may represent spending another 30 years going nowhere on STS hardware

The thing that concerns me is the rush for killing off existing spaceflight systems in order to accelerate the development of commercial options.

If the commercial proponents are correct then they should be "fully funded" on a pittance of what it costs to keep the shuttles or constellation development going. Putting off an Ares test for another year while redirecting funds for commercial access would give both groups everything they need while not drastically affecting the main show.
So why are we forced to choose?

If there is no new money for spaceflight then the choice of methods seems secondary to the fight for saving the program in general.

So NASA needs to accelerate funding for beyond LEO missions by spending $2 to $3 billion a year on the ISS, the ultimate mission to LEO program???

That's $20 to $30 billion over a decade committed to manned LEO missions rather than to manned beyond LEO missions.

These private commercial companies need to stop begging for government contracts and start focusing on private space stations which is going to start the real revolution in manned space travel!

Its always amusing how much private companies profess to hate government but love getting their hands on tax payer dollars!

Marcel F. Williams

@Maxwell,

The only existing spaceflight system is STS. There is no rush to kill it. A plan to end the program was proposed about Six Years ago. Ares isn't an "existing" spaceflight system. It is a proposed one that is still in the design/engineering phase.

What I would like to see is a competition for a new manned system. Putting all our eggs in one basket, especially in a basket that is still in the process of proving itself, is risky.

What I hope to see, are two competing spacecraft that can provide LEO taxi services. In a way, the Obama administration had kinda laid a foundation for that by permitting Orion Lite to be built but I think they need to rethink that program by changing the procurement method to something resembling COTS as well as making Orion Lite a fully man rated vehicle on one or both of the EELVs. IMO, SRBs need not apply.

Slap whatever stamp you want on it anything that gets us the hell OUT of LEO and to the business of actually exploring space . I don't care who builds the rockets.NASA apparently is in a total state of disarray and no one knows or can answer any question about direction or mandates as far as HSF.

Damn the Gravity!

Opening the letter posted on the link here, I count 9 astronauts - not 50. Or is there another list of signers somewhere.

Maxwell, the reason we're 'forced to choose' is because we can't do everything you say at the same time. As made clear by reports by the Augustine Committee and others, it would take something like $5b per year - extra - to both fund Constellation and start NASA back on the path to being a value-added research and technology engine again for our economy. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents - and both Republican and Democratic members of Congress - have made it clear that sort of increase simply wasn't going to happen. Period. So the issue becomes one of hard choices.

This Administration decided to:
- reinvigorate NASA as a science and technology engine;
- make a strategic long-term policy decision, that simple low-earth orbit transportation systems should be the job of a multi-competitor industry - American-led, rather than Russian-led;
- make the hard decision to cancel a program that successive Congresses had made clear they were never going to fully fund anyway, to return to a place we've already been.

And they keep NASA's budget increasing - but use those resources to help jump-start new American industries and technologies, rather than let them continue to wither. It's the right set of decisions.

On the whole I agree, but I think once SpaceX demonstrates the COTS viability model of cargo/crew to orbit, it'll open up the doors to not only domestic competition, but potentially to international competition too.

Why is commercial space asking for government money? If it is commercial, they would paying for it themselves.

It's all pork. The only difference is who owns the pig.

"And they keep NASA's budget increasing"

After they cut 20 Billion form exploration in FY 2010, ensuring that Augustine commission would find Constellation unsustainable. I would be intrested what me Augustine would have said if that 20 Billion cut hadn't happened.

Adding 6 after a 20 billion cut isn't exactly increasing your budget.

ToSpace:

The article actually said:

"...more than 50 ex-astronauts, aerospace businessmen and scientists signed a letter...

Seems pretty clear to me.

tinker

> After they cut 20 Billion form exploration in FY 2010, ensuring that Augustine commission would find Constellation unsustainable.

If you believe this, you can believe anything...

"After they cut 20 Billion form exploration in FY 2010, ensuring that Augustine commission would find Constellation unsustainable. I would be intrested what me Augustine would have said if that 20 Billion cut hadn't happened. "

First off "they" did not cut 20 billion in FY 2010...the NASA budget is not even 20 billion...ok you meant in long term funding. But even under Mr. Bush the increases that Constellation needed for the most part were not there.

Second, it is probably a fair assumption (at least I make it) that the Administration wanted to toss Constellation.

Any fair and balanced (grin) assessment of the project would have to conclude that it was 1) out of control managerially 2) not executable in the two terms (in theory) of the administration and 3) did not seem to advance any particular policy agenda.

At the foundation it presented the administration with two unrealistic choices. Increase the NASA budget or end the ISS program.

The method of choice of shutting down badly performing government programs these days is "the commission". Most commissions start with some "back door" theory on what the outcome should be...and my guess is that Obama and his people (more the latter) wanted some effort that bears results in their "lifetime" (1 or 2 terms). Given the trajectory that it was on Ares 1 and Orion might not have even made it to LEO in a two term Obama administration.

In addition since even "you" have described NASA oversight of contractors as poor (a valid word based on your viewpoints of the Node 3 effort by Boeing) it was clear that some major reorg was needed. Ending Constellation is that vehicle.

It is hard to see the AC coming up with a different conclusion.

Robert G. Oler

The difference between these gentlemen's sentiments and those of Mr. Armstrong, Captain Cernan and Captain Lovell is that as far as I can tell they did not stand to gain financially depending on where the government decides to put its money. The same cannot be said for many of the signatory's of this letter. As I said before, I have no problem financially supporting commercial development of LEO capability. I do have a problem with that being the only game in town, and that such an experiment in mercantilisim comes at the expense of BEO human exploration.

"... that bears results in their "lifetime" (1 or 2 terms). Given the trajectory that it was on Ares 1 and Orion might not have even made it to LEO in a two term Obama administration."

and unfortunately for the Constellation supporters/team, Bush did not conceive and endorse and fund the program early in his first term. Sure, hands were full once 9/11 came, but did he have some sort of big plan for NASA when he came in besides finishing ISS?

You hit the nail on the head. If you want something done, it's gotta be announced early in that first term so it can almost be completed within eight years. Kennedy was on the right track with Apollo, doing so in his first term, which LBJ followed through with. Simple as that. Clinton committed to an international station and followed through for eight years.

I too don't like Obama putting off a decision till 2015. Can he be that confident that he will have a second term? That he will be followed by another democrat that will follow through with his legacy? And it is just ridiculous to say anything will happen in 2025, 15 years from now. He should really focus on what he can achieve by 2012 or even 2016. Perhaps 2018 cause even Apollo carried over into the next administration somewhat.

8 years...The Octagon of political will.

nasaengineerdotcom - are you really not getting it?

It's the difference between an open checkbook cost-plus contracting model and a commercial fixed-cost contract.

The former got us into the mad-house cost structure we have today, with abominations like ULA and CxP. The latter is capitalism at its finest.

Charging government for services is not pork - getting government hand-outs without competition is pork. See the difference?

While Armstrong, Cernan, and Lovel have higher motives, I think Musk must have some higher motives as well. He has really put his own fortune on the line. I doubt, if I had sold paypal for hundreds of millions of dollars, I would have risked it all on a rocket company of all things. Musk is not the first to try it and he would not be the first to loose it all in the process.

Dave, your message is right on point. You've stated the issue directly-Constellation support was only sufficient to keep trudging along. Neither Republicans or Democrats-then as now-could raise the support to fully fund the program. Instead it just limped along. Is that what posters want?

You are correct I got the numbers wrong. It was a 20% cut to explorations' budget not 20 billion. In either case the cuts guartanteed that the Augustine commission would come to the conclusion that the Obama administration wanted and you pretty much confirmed what I was trying to say which is that the Augustine Commission was not a fair and impartial analysis of HSF. It was a rigged exercise with the decision pre-ordained. So those who site the commision as a rational engineering based evaluation as justification for killing Constellation are either engaging in spin or are kidding themselves. Let's all just admit it was a political decision and stop trying to make a virtue out of what is a crass power play and ego building exercise.

"In either case the cuts guartanteed that the Augustine commission would come to the conclusion that the Obama administration wanted and you pretty much confirmed what I was trying to say which is that the Augustine Commission was not a fair and impartial analysis of HSF. It was a rigged exercise with the decision pre-ordained."

that may be your conclusion but that is not my opinion nor what I stated.

First off Human spaceflight and human space exploration or merely "operations" as practiced by NASA are neither synonymous or exclusive. Certain elements in NASA would like to be the "alpha and omega" of human spaceflight in the US, but we have played that tune since 1980 and are almost at a complete stop.

We will have "human spaceflight" under the new direction. ISS continues (which it could not have done under the POR) and we are going to have HSF on commercially operated vehicles. We might not have NASA spending money to work on projects to send federally paid astronauts places to do various things...but that does not mean we will not have HSF.

Second I think that the Augustine commission was a very fair analysis of the "program of record", its future, and various alternative plans without any bias other then what I stated (done in the lifetime of this administration 4 or 8 years).

It is fairly clear from the anti "change" forces in The Congress that there is a lot of rhetoric but little support for additional dollars which clearly Constellation needed if it was to have a chance (at least on paper) of producing flight hardware.

The burden on Constellation program managers was to show how they could execute the program on the dollars that were likely to be available. They have never been able to do that.

Constellation has never gotten the funds it claimed needed even under "friendly" GOP administration and Congress hence the argument that the current administration cutting back those request changed things...seems unrealistic.

Robert G. Oler

Crazy Eddie:
"It's the difference between an open checkbook cost-plus contracting model and a commercial fixed-cost contract.
The former got us into the mad-house cost structure we have today, with abominations like ULA and CxP. The latter is capitalism at its finest."

Hopefully you meant to say U*S*A and not ULA. Although they are made from pieces of the same 2 companies (Boeing, LM) ULA actually launches missions for NASA via fixed cost contracts. USA is NASA's bloated cost-plus/gravy train contractor.

exnavy said "It was a rigged exercise with the decision pre-ordained."

The exact same thing could be said of ESAS.

The number one reason ESAS "selected" the Constellation Architecture was because of JOBS!

Don't even attempt to claim otherwise, because you'd be flat out wrong.